1122
CNN blocks Firefox with uBo (lemmus.org)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world
189 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 366 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Why won't you let them protect your privacy???

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 88 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    To be fair, I can actually sort-of see a specific point here:

    They are legally required to offer you that cookie choice. If you block that choice, are they in violation of the law even if they cannot apply cookies? Just because their site does implement tech for it (even though you're blocking it, but the law cannot know that) and they cannot show you the popup allowing you to reject the tech (since you're blocking it)?

    Weird thing. Doubt there'd be a clear answer without someone dragging someone else in front of a court for it, plus that's of course not why CNN is blocking us here, but it's an interesting thought whether they are even allowed to let you on if they cannot present you with the GDPR choice.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 89 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Yeah. GDPR should have been implemented as a mandatory part of HTML or even HTTP that interacts with a builtin browser feature. Let the user make the choice once, in the browser, and let the browser tell the visited site what's allowed. Statutory compliance would mean something like

    • browser detects and warns about cookies which do not appear to be in compliance with user's preferences (optionally: browser can block cookies which do not appear to be in compliance)
    • browser detects sites which do not implement the spec at all, and warns the user about that
    • regulatory body checks for compliance on any site with over X number of users
    • regulatory body checks major browsers for compliance
    • any combination or all of the above
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 39 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yeah. GDPR should have been implemented as a mandatory part of HTML or even HTTP that interacts with a builtin browser feature.

    Well, it kind of is. The Do Not Track header has recently seen a court win in Germany (source):

    It turned out that the judge agreed with vzbv, ruling that the social media giant is no longer allowed to warn users it doesn't respect DNT signals. That's because, under GDPR, the right to opt out of web tracking and data collection can also be exercised using automated procedures.

    And it is basically the same in California too Source

    GPC is a valid do-not-sell-my-personal-information signal according to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which stipulates that websites are legally required to respect a signal sent by users who want to opt-out of having their personal data sold.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Then why can over 100,000 other sites show their cookie banners as required by GDPR while Firefox + unlock origin is active, but somehow one of the largest media companies in America "just can't do it" without disabling your ad-blocker?

    If they really couldn't do it, they would do like Home Depot did and block anyone in europe from accessing their site.

    This is not about GDPR at all! This is exclusively about forcing you to disable your ad-blocker so they can make more money from offering a bad browsing experience.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •